As Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and his troops respond to the country's uprisings with force, killing at least 60 protesters in recent weeks, the U.S. debates another possible military intervention. Corbis

March 28, 2011

ADVERTISEMENT

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

10 things you need to know today

Today's best articles

Today's top cartoons

The good news newsletter

The week's best photojournalism

Daily business briefing

The Arab uprisings have spread to Syria, and President Bashar Al-Assad has responded with vague promises of greater freedoms, but also with brute force. His troops have killed at least 60 protesters in recent weeks. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Sunday that he would support a no-fly zone over Syria if Assad continues to escalate his violence. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rejected that idea. But should the U.S. consider intervening in Syria, too?

Yes, toppling Assad is in America's interest: The key difference between Syria's "murderous government" and Libya's, says Gordon Chang in Forbes, is that getting rid of Assad is in America's interest. He's a "key ally" of Iran and a "direct threat to Israel," while Libya's Moammar Gadhafi is mostly a thorn in Europe's side. So we should do more than "deplore" his brutal crackdown, "we should do all we can to stop it, if not for the Syrian people than for ourselves.""A no-fly zone... over Syria?"

We don't have to invade to support democracy: Even if we don't step in directly to topple Assad's "rancid regime," we have non-military tools to weaken it, says Josh Block at Progressive Fix. We should ramp up sanctions and criticism, and send the U.S. ambassador to the scene of one of the massacres to demand a United Nations investigation. That alone would boost the brave protesters standing up to "Assad's thugs." At the very least, "America owes them that much.""The case for supporting Syrian democracy"